It may in fact involve doing _less_ rather than more in the pipeline. If they use the native resolution of the sensor for their 4K (which they do, it's simply cropped to native res) you won't have to do a downsampling step. The rest of your processing can be the same pipeline as stills as long as the processors can handle the throughput without power or heat problems. The codec at the end will have more data to process, but the codecs can handle that and are industry standards. In both cases, the 1DC proves that the stock 1DX hardware is capable of the feat.

If that is the case, then the 1DX is exactly a _crippled_ version of the 1DC: resolution-destroying code is inserted into the firmware of the 1DX that is left out of the 1DC. This might not be terribly hard to hack; I can think of two approaches off hand instantly.

this got me thinking. some thoughts to that: the resolution destruction does significantly reduce the amount of data that the pipeline(s) has to deal with. that may be the reason why they use 4k 8bit on the 1Dc. also: if the 1DX shoots jpeg the framerate can be higher. so maybe one of the downstream pipelines is not capable of processing more and somewhere upstream (the DIGICs maybe?) the downsizing(resolution, bit-depth) and/or jpeg encoding takes place...another thing: the 1DX has roughly the same resolution as the 7D, right? what if the dual digic4s could already do some of the stuff the dual DIGIC5+'s can? I'm not asking for 4k here, but what if 2.5k would be possible...argh! I'm off into dreamland here...

The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?

If you f**k around with third party software, I don't think you're entitled to ask that question if all goes belly-up.

It's all been checked for you. You want to have no warranty issues, you know what the price is. But then this'll probably be all about the price not being fair.

And then to think I'm not even remotely capitalist...

Just make sure you removed your ML CF card before tossing the body over to Canon

What if your camera was 'bricked' whilst running ML and taking the batteries/CF card out did not reset. Well ML are not going to fix it and your friendly neighborhood Canon dealer will be asked to and when they plug your camera into their diagnostic computer...well...who knows what they'll say

To be honest, I'm sure Canon would replace a camera if ML or modified firmware locked it up, because they would probably want to test the camera and find out why....btw this is why I never installed ML on my T2i when I had it

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

Production costs are of minuscule to no importance in determining retail price. Canon can charge what they choose. If you don't like the price, don't buy (or wait and see if it drops, ala 5DIII). A wheelbarrow is not listed among our assets.

Ahahaha! I love that movie! And as someone who bought the 5DIII early on, I completely agree with your point. (I live in Japan and bought it in June, and converting the yen came out to more than $3500). Sure, I would have been happier if it had been less expensive. But no Canon enforcers came by to drag me down to Yodobashi Camera and force me to buy it.

It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...

It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.

Photographer A and Photographer B both shoot a wedding. Photographer A charges $800 and Photographer B charges $8,000.

Photographer A's images are out of focus, improperly exposed, mundane and uninspiring. Photographer B's pictures are not only technically perfect, but they are absolutely luminous, capture the moments perfectly and positively soar.

But wait, Photographer B admits that he USED THE EXACT SAME CAMERA as Photographer A. All of the difference is in the software holding the camera.

DB

It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...

It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.

Photographer A and Photographer B both shoot a wedding. Photographer A charges $800 and Photographer B charges $8,000.

Photographer A's images are out of focus, improperly exposed, mundane and uninspiring. Photographer B's pictures are not only technically perfect, but they are absolutely luminous, capture the moments perfectly and positively soar.

But wait, Photographer B admits that he USED THE EXACT SAME CAMERA as Photographer A. All of the difference is in the software holding the camera.

Clearly Photographer B is immoral and unethical.

Nope! Photographer B was just cleverly using his gear better. But if you're looking for immorality and poor ethics, what about Photographer C who employed Photographer A (as a sub-contractor) to shoot the wedding, but charged the couple the same $8,000 fee as Photographer B, whose great pictures he pinched wirelessly during the ceremony and then passed them off as his own. (now I've opened another can of worms WiFi Photographic security)

If Photographer B intentionally lobotomized Photographer A, ruining their photographic and earning ability for the remainder of their useful life, Photographer B would at minimum be immoral and unethical.

OK, we're getting a bit beyond the pale, but there are valid arguments that this behavior is immoral and unethical in that there exists some degree of compact between consumer and manufacturer that one won't unfairly take advantage of the other. The fact of transition costs from system to system (lenses etc.) mean that this can indeed rise to the level of betrayal. You can say that we should have known there was such a possibility beforehand, but that's like saying Photographer A should have known Photographer B might have been a sociopath.

It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...

It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.

Photographer A and Photographer B both shoot a wedding. Photographer A charges $800 and Photographer B charges $8,000.

Photographer A's images are out of focus, improperly exposed, mundane and uninspiring. Photographer B's pictures are not only technically perfect, but they are absolutely luminous, capture the moments perfectly and positively soar.

But wait, Photographer B admits that he USED THE EXACT SAME CAMERA as Photographer A. All of the difference is in the software holding the camera.